Using IoT Sensor Technologies to Reduce Waste and Improve Sustainability in Artisanal Fish Farming in Southern Brazil
, Yanqing Duan 2, Joaquim Valverde 3, Samuel Van Ransbeeck 2, Tahmina Ajmal 2 and Silma Valverde 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I discovered various problems in the document after carefully reading it. Here are my observations:
1-In the abstract and conclusion section, use absolute terms (numerical values) rather than relative values to support your findings.
2-Background, gap, why, how, and technique must be mentioned in the abstract and introduction section.
3-There are not enough citations in the introduction section. Using the below 5 key references in the introduction section, discuss a few sentences about the paper's topic and new state-of-the-art subjects.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9932414
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3571728
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210670722004061
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5495
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7327
4-The authors abruptly changed from section 2 to section 2. 1. Fill up Section 2 with appropriate sentences.
5-The implications of the work beyond the scope must be stated in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
From the title it seems it is a regional study. Further, the manuscript is formatted as per the format prescribed for review papers (with literature review) of the journal ‘Sustainability’. If it is review paper then the manuscript with only regional importance (Southern Brazil) lacks depth. But while going to the next section it seems the manuscript is submitted as a research article. If yes, then the manuscript is poorly prepared. The figures are of very poor quality. There is no mention of any sample size (no. of stakeholders etc.) in the manuscript. The research questions stated in the manuscript do not match with the title. There is nothing on use of IoT to reduce feed wastage in the research questions. Coming to the results and discussion part, the authors have given some very subjective statements with regard to their findings. They have stated that they have collected data. But where is the data in the results section. How was the data analysed? The authors have stated in results that based on the sensor based technology they have implemented, they were able to reduce fish death, increase productivity, reduce feed wastage, reduce cost. But where is the data? It is a very poorly prepared manuscript and confusing one. Further, none of the research questions they have stated were properly answered.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting piece of work with a good review of relevant literature. However, it is not clear this research has been compared to any similar work done elsewhere other than Brazil and a general term, China which is way too big to be compared or discussed in the literature. It may be helpful to extend the literature review to a few other (smaller) countries/regions or specific Chinese regions with similar environments and climates. The work is also done based on a small area hence it will be helpful to further discuss the possibility of apply the work to other regions in Brazil (not in the literature review but extended discussion of any other beneficiaries . The work itself has limited originality but with some good development/application of modern IoT techs, based on the specific area chosen.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Attachment below.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript considerably. Appreciate their effort. They have made all necessary changes and the manuscript can now be accepted for publication.
Author Response
We see that all the reviewers have accepted our revised version. We have made more modifications in the R2 revision based on the comments by the academic editor.
